City of Manila vs The Arellano Law Colleges Inc.

Facts:

RA 267 provides that cities and municipalities are authorized to contract loans from
Reconstruction Finance Corporation for the purpose of purchasing or expropriating homesites
within their territorial jurisdiction and reselling them at cost to residents.

The court below ruled that this provision empowers cities to purchase but not expropriate and so
dismissed the present action, which seeks to condemn several parcels of land situated in
Legarda St. Manila.

ISSUE: WON the necessity for condemnation is shown to justify the expropriation.

HELD: No

The SC is inclined to believe that Act No. 267 empowers cities to expropriate as well as to purchase
lands for homesites. The word "expropriating," taken singly or with the text, is susceptible of only
meaning. But this power to expropriate is necessarily subject to the limitations and conditions noted
in the decisions above cited. The National Government may not confer its instrumentalities authority
which itself may not exercise. A stream can not run higher than its source.

To authorize the condemnation of any particular land by a grantee of the power of eminent domain,
a necessity must exist for the taking thereof for the proposed uses and purposes.

Necessity within the rule that the particular property to be expropriated must be necessary. does not
mean an absolute but only a reasonable or practical necessity, such as would combine the greatest
benefit to the public with the least inconvenience and expense to the condemning party and property
owner consistent with such benefits.

The land in question has cost the owner P140,000. The people for whose benefit the condemnation
is being undertaken are so poor they could ill afford to meet this high price, unless they intend to
borrow the money with a view to disposing of the property later for a profits. Cheaper lands not
dedicated to a purpose so worthy as a school and more suited to the occupants' needs and means,
if really they only want to own their own homes, are plenty elsewhere

the defendant not only has invested a considerable amount for its property but had the plans for
construction ready and would have completed the project a long time ago had it not been stopped by
the city authorities.